Related papers: Nine Judges, Two Effective Votes: Correlated Error…

Offering a promising solution to the scalability challenges associated with human evaluation, the LLM-as-a-judge paradigm is rapidly gaining traction as an approach to evaluating large language models (LLMs). However, there are still many…

New Large Language Models (LLMs) become available every few weeks, and modern application developers confronted with the unenviable task of having to decide if they should switch to a new model. While human evaluation remains the gold…

Large language models (LLMs) can generate persuasive narratives at scale, raising concerns about their potential use in disinformation campaigns. Assessing this risk ultimately requires understanding how readers receive such content. In…

Diversity in training data, architecture, and providers is assumed to mitigate homogeneity in LLMs. However, we lack empirical evidence on whether different LLMs differ meaningfully. We conduct a large-scale empirical evaluation on over 350…

Evaluating medical AI systems using expert clinician panels is costly and slow, motivating the use of large language models (LLMs) as alternative adjudicators. Here, we evaluate an LLM jury composed of three frontier AI models scoring 3333…

The paradigm of LLM-as-a-judge relies on a critical assumption, namely that high inter-evaluator agreement indicates reliable and objective evaluation. We present two complementary findings that challenge this assumption. \textbf{First}, we…

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as automated evaluators, yet prior works demonstrate that these LLM judges often lack consistency in scoring when the prompt is altered. However, the effect of the grading scale itself…

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to evaluate information retrieval (IR) systems, generating relevance judgments traditionally made by human assessors. Recent empirical studies suggest that LLM-based evaluations often align…

This paper explores the application of the Condorcet Jury theorem to the domain of sentiment analysis, specifically examining the performance of various large language models (LLMs) compared to simpler natural language processing (NLP)…

As Large Language Models (LLMs) have become more advanced, they have outpaced our abilities to accurately evaluate their quality. Not only is finding data to adequately probe particular model properties difficult, but evaluating the…

Evaluating the conversational abilities of large language models (LLMs) remains a challenging task. Current mainstream approaches primarily rely on the "LLM-as-a-judge" paradigm, where an LLM is prompted to serve as an evaluator to assess…

LLM-as-a-Judge frameworks are increasingly trusted to automate evaluation in place of human experts, yet their reliability in high-stakes medical contexts remains unproven. We stress-test this assumption for detecting incomplete…

Large language models are often used as judges to score candidate responses, then validated with a single global metric such as correlation with reference labels. This can be misleading when the real deployment task is best-of-n selection…

LLM-as-judge systems promise scalable, consistent evaluation. We find the opposite: judges are consistent, but not with each other; they are consistent with themselves. Across 3,240 evaluations (9 judges x 120 unique video x pack items x 3…

As qualitative researchers show growing interest in using automated tools to support interpretive analysis, a large language model (LLM) is often introduced into an analytic workflow as is, without systematic evaluation of interpretive…

LLM-based agent judges are an emerging approach to evaluating conversational AI, yet a fundamental uncertainty remains: can we trust their assessments, and if so, how many are needed? Through 960 sessions with two model pairs across 15…

This research introduces the Judge's Verdict Benchmark, a novel two-step methodology to evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) as judges for response accuracy evaluation tasks. We assess how well 54 LLMs can replicate human judgment when…

As Large Language Models (LLMs) continue to evolve, evaluating them remains a persistent challenge. Many recent evaluations use LLMs as judges to score outputs from other LLMs, often relying on a single large model like GPT-4o. However,…

As video language models (VLMs) gain more applications in various scenarios, the need for robust and scalable evaluation of their performance becomes increasingly critical. The traditional human expert-based evaluation of VLMs has…

LLM-as-a-judge is a framework where a large language model (LLM) evaluates the output of another LLM. While LLMs excel at producing qualitative textual evaluations, they often struggle to predict human preferences and numeric scores. We…